Has ASEAN become Marginalized within Regional Security Architecture?
South Asian leaders continue to reiterate how “central” ASEAN is to the region’s security architecture. However, in practice, the tendency is to prioritize bilateral agreements, gradually marginalizing the organization. This fragmentation is weakening regional cooperation, accentuating divisions, and compromising stability in the context of growing tensions in the Indo-Pacific. These trends are worrying at a time when Sino-American rivalries are becoming more acute.
The global competition between China and the United States is particularly evident in Southeast Asia in the area of security. In this maritime and continental space located at the confluence of the Indian and Pacific Oceans, their competing strategies shape the regional environment in at least two ways. On the one hand, the actions of Beijing and Washington directly affect the sovereignty and security of coastal states, particularly in the South China Sea, where China is deploying a range of hybrid actions—occupation and reclamation of islets, harassment of fishermen and coast guards from other nations, cyberattacks and information operations—to which Washington responds by increasing freedom of navigation operations and other naval exercises. On the other hand, both China and the United States are investing in deepened security partnerships, which are vectors of their regional influence.
Faced with the effects of Sino-American rivalry, Southeast Asian states are in turn developing defense strategies and policies aimed at protecting themselves and promoting their interests, while at the same time prompting a redefinition of the regional security architecture (RSA). The latter can be broadly divided into three systems: bilateral and minilateral cooperation frameworks serving an operational purpose; partnerships with the United States, perceived by most neighboring countries as guarantors of regional stability and therefore deserving of special attention; and finally, a juxtaposition of multilateral forums organized around the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). These forums are designed as spaces for regional cooperation and socialization, intended to facilitate adherence to a set of norms, enable the emergence of common strategic perceptions and, above all, dilute the influence of extra-regional powers such as China, the United States, India and Japan within a broader group under the leadership of the association. [...]
Juliette Loesch is associate research fellow at Ifri's Center for Asian Studies.
This article is available only in French and has been published in Politique étrangère, Vol. 90, No. 4, 2025.
Available in:
Themes and regions
Share
Juliette LOESCH
Associate Research Fellow, Center for Asian Studies, Ifri
Iran: Anatomy of a Power at War
The elimination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several high-ranking officials at the outset of the 2026 American-Israeli operation did not succeed in bringing down the Iranian regime. The regime had prepared for such a scenario, notably by decentralizing its structures. Moreover, it continues to adapt to war. The power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is growing at the expense of the Shiite clergy. The security apparatus defends the country’s sovereignty and justifies its actions in the name of raison d’état.
“Remodeling” the Middle East?
Chaos continues to spread, seemingly without end, across the Middle East. The Israeli-American attack on Iran has resulted in a clear military and diplomatic failure, but it is paving the way for a regional realignment, the consequences of which remain uncertain. New regional groupings are taking shape, either centered around Israel or built on the prospect of coexistence with Tehran, alongside a decline in American influence and the marginalization of Europe, while China maintains a low-key presence.
Silicon Valley and War: Lessons from Ukraine
Over the course of international conflicts, and particularly in Ukraine, major tech companies have emerged as central actors. Initially subject to wartime maneuvering, they have since become decisive actors in their own right, privatizing a significant share of wartime exchanges, shaping the information flows of societies, and presenting themselves as providers of security. This situation raises important questions about states’ autonomy in making decisions and taking action.
Does Artificial Intelligence Change the Nature of War?
From Gaza to Ukraine and Iran, current conflicts are being shaped by the arrival of artificial intelligence and robots on the battlefield. The changes under way are so profound that humans risk rapidly losing control over entire aspects of the conduct of military operations. While these technological developments are altering the character of war, their impact on the very nature of war itself remains a matter of debate.